Love him or hate him, the man can win a debate. Andrew Bolt shares the results of the National Press Club Debate in Australia writing:
No wonder the warmists hate debate
The National Press Club debate’s results:
Lord Monckton – 10
Former Greens adviser Richard Denniss – 1
Journalists – 0.
Watch the video of the debate in full:
Paul_T says:
July 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Would you all stop calling him ”lord” . He’s no lord at all. It’s a self proclaim title he stole from his father. He has never been proclaimed or named ”lord” by the Queen, the Parliement, nor the Lord Chamber.
Odd that you seem far keener to display a complete lack of understanding as to how a heriditary peerage works, rather than discuss anything to do with climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, or maybe not that odd considering the lack of rigour you display in checking out even basic facts.
Bill Illis – ““Has any pro-AGW person ever explained how they get to 3.0C per doubling?”
Nigel Harris – “I think section 8.6 of WG1 of IPCC AR4 report is what you’re looking for”
Bill Illis – “[…] The Stefan Boltzmann equation says that would get us to 1.1C. Where does the rest of the warming come from?”
It’s in IPCC report AR4 8.6.2.3 on page 633 – the rest of the warming comes from computer models, but they “strongly disagree on its magnitude“. No mechanism is given, ie. it is purely a figment of the models’ parametrization. “parametrization” means “fudge factor” or “fiddle factor”, see Box TS.8 : “Although the large-scale dynamics of these models are comprehensive, parametrizations are still used to represent unresolved physical processes […]. Uncertainty in parametrizations is the primary reason why climate projections differ between different AOGCMs.“.
Jeremy says:
July 20, 2011 at 2:30 pm
“Honestly, Lord Monckton abuses his Lord title purely for the purpose of weeding out poor debaters..”
====================================================
Its the same reason he wears his Nobel prize pin. He knows it bugs the heck out of the warmistas. I, for one, appreciate his sense of humor and the way it outs the priorities of some people.
I also think you fellow skeptics who dislike Monckton dislike him because he does nothing to advance any real understanding of reality. I will grant you that. What he presents are facts of a matter that is unsettled in his own light. His purpose is not in advancing knowledge. His greatest use is in disproving hysteria.
In disproving the baseless hysteria, he is exceedingly good, and his work is appropriate.
I just wasted a hour watching this!
Except it wasn’t a waste of my time and Lord Monckton was head and shoulders above everyone else in the debate. Well done Lord Monckton, we need more like you sir.
SteveW says: “Would you all stop calling him ”lord” . He’s no lord at all”
This is totally irrelevant, but no-one – no-one – disputes that he is Lord Monckton. Even the recent letter from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which has triggered many comments like yours, begins “Dear Lord Monckton” (http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2011/july/letter-to-viscount-monckton/). The matter does not only affect Lord Monckton, but has potentially severe constitutional implications. It is hotly disputed and will probably end up in the courts if it has not already done so (http://www.foiacentre.com/news-lords-091115.html).
No matter who wins the argument, as I understand it Christopher Monckton will still be Lord Monckton.
I thought Richard Denniss did rather well in the beginning. I think he could even have won. But rather quickly, he started repeating himself and got stuck on the insurance way of thinking where even if you’re unsure of something, you still put in safeguards against it. Over and over, he repeated the same logical fallacy. He had nothing for most of the debate and got progressively worse as it went on. Really sad. Monkton had a lot of facts and was right about the doubling. He’s right about the feedbacks. But I think it goes over the heads of everyone there. They seem to be thinking why should we listen to Monkton rather than the media (that’s us) who tells us that there is scientific consensus.
I find it quite amazing that this debate and its subsequent exposure on this site has called all the warmist trolls out in some form of ‘concensus’ or ‘collective’ action………
Moreover, it is funny how they seem to focus on the relative trivia instead of the basic facts…ad homs will simply not work guys – please try something else, like science and facts!
Just watched the whole debate, the best part is at the end when Monckton spanks the last two “reporters” for asking stupid questions. (re: his “title”).
Otherwise it was respectful, and informative, and should be widely distributed. sarc/
Mike Jonas says:
July 20, 2011 at 3:34 pm
SteveW says: “Would you all stop calling him ”lord” . He’s no lord at all”
Not wishing to get defensive Mike, but I was quoting PaulT and making the exact same point to him as you appear to be trying to make to me. Apologies for the confusion.
Lord Monckton makes a great job, however the ultimate feat is reserved to nature, when nature, as patient as the chinese philosopher, waiting at his front door, will watch his enemy´s corpse passing by; nature will freeze all mouths and tongues with its devastating cold.
This nattering about Mr. Monckton’s hereditary peerage is thoroughly silly, and I get the impression that he thinks it’s silly, too. I have to agree with Jeremy above, who had written that Monckton:
I’ve noted that Mr. Monckton tends not to make much of a point about his “Lord” status – one way or another – when he’s speaking to American audiences in these United States, mostly because Americans just don’t give a damn about the hereditary titles that are such a big frelking deal in the U.K. and in the Commonwealth countries.
It’s an idiot trap, and los warmistas keep proving with risible reliability that they’re bloody idiots.
SteveE says:
July 20, 2011 at 12:10 p
“I have a 2 hour commute from London…”
You must burn up a lot of carbon every day. Don’t you feel guilty?
Well Denniss really is totally clueless and apparently not very bright. But, I don’t find this debate reassuring at all. I don’t get the impression that most in the room are any less clueless than he is. Anyone else find this frightening?
Excellent comment, Vince Causey.
Even the best analogies limp to some extent. But Deniss’s analogy couldn’t limp. It was amputated at the knees. It was on dialysis, heart bypass, in an iron lung in
ICU, and they couldn’t get a steady brain signal.
Doctor………no, I would not go to a witch doctor, shaman, etc
That’s the extent of climate science today…..
Insurance……no, I would not buy insurance for monsters in the closet
that’s the extent of climate science today
Not sure it has been mentioned… but immediately following the debate the following appeared on the Government-funded Australian ABC blog site:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2802994.html
So after being roundly beaten in the debate, however you look at it, Dr Denniss makes the underhand act of slagging off Monckton through the same organisation (ABC) that showed the debate. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it. Given the ABC’s ridiculously pro-CAGW stance I doubt they will allow Monckton a blog to explain his side of things. Maybe if pressured by enough people…
I don’t know what disgusts me the more, the ABC using my tax dollars to publish propoganda, or their tendancy to censor my comments (despite falling within their posting guidelines) on their blogs because they don’t suit the orthodox view. They are not as heavy-handed as the RC mods, but they have a clear agenda in moderation. As a result the ABC shows a very lopsided view in the often feral comments in their blogs.
If Mr. Denniss buys his own insurance the way he suggests here, then I envy his insurance agent. He clearly does not understand what insurance is for or how to buy it. “Fools and their money…”
I find this very interesting – Dave H makes the same mistake that Monkton accuses the journos of in the debate – not checking facts before regurgitating them – yes – not being skeptical!
First Dave H makes an assertion based on something he has read in a warmist blog:
Dave H
July 20, 2011 at 11:48 am
…> says that the climate is a complex, non-linear, chaotic object, so that the prediction of future climate states is not possible.
He’s been making this claim again and again and again, despite the fact that that is **not** what the IPCC says…”
Very quickly learned readers at WUWT point out he is wrong, and Monkton is correct. Dangerousdaze gives a link to the IPCC document in this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/20/monckton-wins-national-press-club-debate-on-climate/#comment-703417
The IPCC document does say “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ”
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
Thats a slam dunk.
Dave H hasnt replied yet, but he wil now go one of two ways:
1. (Most likely – it is human nature) Ignore the fact that he was misled on this one, and continue to trust everything else his sources are telling him, or
2. Raise a skeptical eyebrow – ask what else isnt actually true, start checking a few of those facts which got you beleiving the alarmists in the first place.
Dave H, I invite you humbly to consider option 2 – it is the path that led me and I think many other readers here to this blog. Theres no shame in being misled by those in whom you ought to be able to place your trust. The shame is with them.
Jimmy Haigh says:
July 20, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I was gonna post a similar comment a few hours ago but felt I should refrain from exposing the sad weaknesses of such folk! Clearly, a 2 hour commute, probably generating enough CO2 to kill several thousand endangered species and raise sea levels by a few millimetres doesn’t stop this guy feeling guilty from earning his daily crust to house clothe and feed his wife and kids (presumably?)
LOL
SteveW – My mistake. Apologies.
James Sexton says:
July 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Dangerousdaze says:
July 20, 2011 at 12:47 pm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
It seems to say exactly what you claim it doesn’t. Did you check for yourself?
===========================================================
lol, obviously not. He didn’t bother. Why check for the facts when its easier just to assume people that believe differently are wrong? Lambert found another sucker to believe his nonsense.
Dave H, how does it feel to be played?
====================================
Dave, I hope you’re still reading. I wanted to clarify what I was stating. On my way home from work, I realized how this could sound a bit boorish and cynical with some gloating mixed in. It is not the case. The fact is, you were lied to. The only thing you did wrong was to believe people that anointed themselves as being people to believe. And this happens to all of us at some point in time. The fact is, many of the commentators here were once believers in the CAGW hypothesis, too. But, there comes a point in time where one realizes that if some people can’t be trusted to tell you the truth about the simple wording of a report, then they probably can’t be trusted for much else and it is up to you, and no one else, to discern the truth of the matter.
This is what skepticism is mostly about. We know the media misleads people. They seem to think that’s their job. Our politicians….heh, well, I hope we all know that they lie. But we also know many of the climate scientists have engaged in deceptive practices. They go out of their way to hide not just declines, but data also. They hire P.R. firms, that in hind-view, hold no thought to laws or decency. They attempt to slime any that would utter words contrary to their opinion. Even to the points of irrelevance. (witness the inevitable discussion about Christopher Monckton’s title.) So, we can see, whether they are right or wrong about the ensuing climate catastrophe, they simply can’t be trusted to tell us the truth. The onus is ours now. It isn’t anything anyone wanted, but the world of climatology has capitulated their responsibility, some by their words and actions, others by their lack of words and actions.
So, Dave, its up to us. You, me and the rest of the world to discern the truth and determine whether or not this subject is worth this much consideration. And, if you are as angry as I would be at someone that I trusted so much as to quote them as fact in an internationally read blog, read by thousands daily, archived for posterity, only to find they lied to you, then I can only say, welcome to skepticism.
Monckton is an amazing intellect coupled to an apparent photographic memory and a voracious appetite for research. Not to mention a talent for presentation and a knife-edged sense of humor!
I’m glad he is on my side, yesiree!
I just watched the whole debate and it’s clear that Dr Denniss believes the consensus of climate scientists supports AGW, and we should defer to them. The press strongly support this. Lord Monckton’s references to the science fell on deaf ears for the simple reason that he is not a practicing climate scientist. It didn’t matter that he was right.
Somehow the word needs to get out that a person can understand the science, and identify the merits of the argument without currently being employed in that line of work. Such a person has *more* credibility because he doesn’t have the conflict of interest of a climate scientist who wants to keep his paychecks coming.
Paul_T says:
July 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Would you all stop calling him ”lord” . He’s no lord at all. It’s a self proclaim title he stole from his father. He has never been proclaimed or named ”lord” by the Queen, the Parliement, nor the Lord Chamber.
…—… …—… …—…
1) Letters Patent – granting an hereditary peerage are solely the gift of the Monarch. Any one entitled to such Letters Patent IS by constitutional definition a Member of the House of Lords.
The only revocation of such Letters Patent is the gift of the Monarch. Since H M Queen Elizabeth II did NOT revoke any of the Letters Patent for any member of th House of Lords when the Parliamentary portion of the House of Lords was crippled and wrecked by mal-advised constitutional reform (under one Anthony Blair sometime Prime Minister).
2) That was a British Passport that he used to prove his identity; therefore HM Passport office (a branch of the government) has checked his entitlement to the title documented in his passport. HM Passport Office has agreed that he is entitled to claim the style and dignity of Viscount Monkton of Benchly.
Therefore the correct form of address is (unless he invites you otherwise) is ‘My Lord Viscount’ or My Lord’ to be less formal.
I refer you to this from that well know well of sometime dubious reliability : Wikepeadia :
Monckton was born the eldest son of the late Major-General Gilbert Monckton, 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Since his father died – he INHERRITED the title (that is what happens with hereditary titles; when the current bearer dies). He did not; nor could have; steal the title.
His title has nothing to do with Parliament or the Lord Chamberlin; only H M Queen Elizabeth II has the gift of revoking it; which she has not done.
AND
why does this have any bearing on the debate; any more than the dignities accorded to an ex vice President of the USA has. Oh look the Emperor (Lord) really does have a coronet and clock on !